It seems there's a bit of fallout at Digg at the moment. People gaming the system, concerted efforts to get certain stories dugg, and therefore on the home page.Some of the top members complaining about stuff (not actually seen the complaint, so I'm not actually sure if they are moaning about the gangs of people digging things, or are moaning about the attempts of the DIgg teasm to stop it).

Now is it me, or does this all sound like a very Google style problem?Exchange Digg's for Links, and you basically have the whole problem of people exhcanges links and things in Google.

To that extent, it's interesting to see how the 2 solve their reasonably similar problems (I know there's a bit mroe to it with Google, but the links=votes thing is a regular issue).

By the sounds of it, Digg are going to reduce the effect of a Digg you make, if you're always digging stories submitted by the same people. So the more you digg a certain submitter, the less effect you have on them.

They are also going to rank people who only digg stories, but don't really submit them themselves. Again, the more you digg a particular persons stories, the less effect they will have. So someone who diggs a lot of stories that become popular, from a broad variety of submitters, will appear highly on that system of ranking.A little bit like defining trusted sources?

That's an interesting comparison. You're right - in some ways, Digg is a lot like Google, except with a much more selective spidering process. (Or at least, an ideally more selective spidering process...which is, of course, what they're trying to keep!)

It seems to me like any system which ultimately depends on voting is subject to being manipulated. Regardless of what the voting issue is - links, actual votes, or something internal to the page like keyword placement, that point can be manipulated for better votes. The best solution so far has been to create more and more complex systems, so that no one "signal" (just to switch over to the more standard terminology...) carries so much weight, thereby making the systems harder to game.

It seems to be a strategy of checks and balances - provide the power to "vote" on particular signals, but then weight the value of those votes against other factors in order to give them a more even effect on the whole.